President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Public Law 107-110, into law on January 8, 2002. It was described as having the goal of closing “the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind (No Child Left Behind Act)”. The law is centered on adequate yearly progress (AYP), which is the annual achievement targets that all students (including minority subgroups) are expected to reach. Subgroups, as defined by the NCLB, are groups that have been overlooked in the past such as racial minorities, students whose native language is not English, and low-income students. These groups, along with the rest of the students, must meet AYP or the school, after failing two years
…show more content…
Title III brings attention to the needs of English-language learners, referred to in the NCLB as Limited English Proficient (hereafter referred to as LEP) students (No Child Left Behind Act). NCLB requires schools to report all scores from standardized tests and meet AYP with all subgroups (2001). The Act also requires LEP students to take English proficiency exams yearly. There is no national agreement on the definition of “English-proficient”. There is a lack of effective testing accommodations for LEP students, (Abedi), a lack of resources for their teachers (Neill), and a lack of recognition of the fact that LEP students have a different starting point than non-LEP students with regards to AYP, all making it more difficult for these students to succeed. In addition, Title III focuses exclusively on English, a transition from a previous focus on bilingual education. The purpose of this essay is to analyze this transition via the following question: How does the No Child Left Behind Act discourage bilingual education and what effect does English-acquisition only education have on the students described in Title …show more content…
As a result, teachers increasingly “taught to the test”, a method that adversely affects LEP students in particular. The rewards earned when students performed well on standardized tests were incentives for teachers to narrow their curriculums and teach no more than was necessary for students to excel on standardized exams (Hursh). A narrow curriculum often leaves little room for instructors to weave students’ individual cultures into the classroom, removing a layer of diversity from their education. In addition, LEP students did not learn any more English than was necessary to succeed on the test, leaving them unable to communicate effectively in English despite performing well on proficiency tests. On achievement tests in core subjects, LEP students might be tested in their native language, but this is hardly beneficial to them if they are not literate in that language, something that is hardly rare among LEP students (Wright). On exams in math and science, LEP students struggle because they do not understand the complex language of some questions—not because they do not know the material—. This problem is easily solved through the use of testing accommodations, however; these are often not implemented due to a belief that they would aid non-LEP students (an idea that research dismantled)
Title III brings attention to the needs of English-language learners, referred to in the NCLB as Limited English Proficient (hereafter referred to as LEP) students (No Child Left Behind Act). NCLB requires schools to report all scores from standardized tests and meet AYP with all subgroups (2001). The Act also requires LEP students to take English proficiency exams yearly. There is no national agreement on the definition of “English-proficient”. There is a lack of effective testing accommodations for LEP students, (Abedi), a lack of resources for their teachers (Neill), and a lack of recognition of the fact that LEP students have a different starting point than non-LEP students with regards to AYP, all making it more difficult for these students to succeed. In addition, Title III focuses exclusively on English, a transition from a previous focus on bilingual education. The purpose of this essay is to analyze this transition via the following question: How does the No Child Left Behind Act discourage bilingual education and what effect does English-acquisition only education have on the students described in Title …show more content…
As a result, teachers increasingly “taught to the test”, a method that adversely affects LEP students in particular. The rewards earned when students performed well on standardized tests were incentives for teachers to narrow their curriculums and teach no more than was necessary for students to excel on standardized exams (Hursh). A narrow curriculum often leaves little room for instructors to weave students’ individual cultures into the classroom, removing a layer of diversity from their education. In addition, LEP students did not learn any more English than was necessary to succeed on the test, leaving them unable to communicate effectively in English despite performing well on proficiency tests. On achievement tests in core subjects, LEP students might be tested in their native language, but this is hardly beneficial to them if they are not literate in that language, something that is hardly rare among LEP students (Wright). On exams in math and science, LEP students struggle because they do not understand the complex language of some questions—not because they do not know the material—. This problem is easily solved through the use of testing accommodations, however; these are often not implemented due to a belief that they would aid non-LEP students (an idea that research dismantled)